I know 4 right!!! This giant subcontinent as large both population and size wise as europe and just as divided by heritage has 4 civs which is too much!!! Way too packed!!! Truly you are a genius not spamming some sort of bias. I most definitely think you are important in your contributions to thr larger narrative.
Technically 3 since Bengali are Bangladesh country.
Also the Burgundy germanics are not frankish. They are… the Burgundi! Woah!!
My pick for the next one is the Caucasus, Georgia is one of the most important medieval kingdoms in the game that can’t be represented AT ALL with the current civs (not even close)
Like, in the Tamerlane campaigns they are represented by Persians… PERSIANS, that’s kinda like representing Vikings with Italians or something lol
Then I would say Africa, because that continent is also very underrepresented, and then an Asian DLC, a Chinese “split” and even the addition of a Thai civ would be cool
Eventually after those we could come back to Europe and add Serbs/Croats, Romanians and maaaaybe Venetians
I’m not a fan of adding a lot of more American civs tho, I mean, a water-based American civ (Maybe the Chimu) would be cool, but we don’t know enough about a lot of these civilizations pre-colonization so a lot of them are better suited for AoE3
Yes, I agree. The expansion should have at least the Armenians as well, though I think the Alans and Kazars should be the other two civs. Hopefully any potential Caucasus DLC comes with a new architecture set.
Yes, it’s total nonsense. They should’ve at least attempted to get the architecture right. A civ like the Teutons (who have a Georgian monastery) would’ve been a better choice.
Side note: Due to my extremely sentimental feelings about the Georgian mountain villages, during my first playthrough of the Tamerlane scenario going through the Caucasus, I absolutely refused to destroy the first village I encountered, rather protecting it and using it for trade. I ended up having to destroy one of the towers because it threatened my trade, but after that, I made sure to keep it intact.
Considering that most of the playerbase is Western Europe, USA, Latin America and China… I think most of the playerbase would like a lot more Venice than another indian civ.
Ah yes Venice, they could be such a cool naval, gunpowder amd archer civ! Oh yeah they could even have some trade nonuses, strobg militia, light cav and monks! Wait no, thats too much like Italians
Well, what aboit givingbthem a gold bonus representing the mercenaries, and a building that replaces population? Oh wait, that sounds like Portugal
Oh but Venuce clearly cannot be represented by the Italian civ! They are too diferent! We need even more European civs
That’s going to be the game? comparing civs (specially with one that is not here yet)?
Let’s compare Hindustanis and Gurjaras
Both are camels civ with a unique camel unit and massive camel bonuses
Both have some sort of food bonus
Both lack halb (someething common on camel civs) and the only infantry unit they use it’s their UU from castle
Both have subpar navy
Both have almost identical archery range
So what is it… are they so similar that both of them shouldn’t be in the game or you can tell the difference in the gameplay?
Either way it does not matter… if they are too similar, that Italians are in the game shouldn’t be a reason to ban Venice. And if you can still feel the difference with those similarities, that’s proof that you can still make a venetian civ unique enough from italians
Considering most of players are 25+ years old, and closer to 30 than 25, they are more likely to see a medieval game based on fun and variety over their modern nationalistic feeling as they are more mature than average video game players. Most of the players will enjoy a new civ regardless of region as long as they are fun and unique to play.
